dex_get_pool_ohlcv

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the function and use cases, without disclosing return format, pagination, timezone handling, or error behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences capture the core action and use cases without redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the function, and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description conveys the return type ('historical OHLCV price data') and provides sufficient purpose. Combined with the schema's clear input parameters, it is adequate for a straightforward data-fetching tool, though it doesn't detail array structures or edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema, not even referencing the required parameters. It neither improves nor harms the existing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves historical OHLCV price data for a pool, specifying the resource (pool) and data type (OHLCV). It expands the acronym and mentions use cases, distinguishing it from pool detail and transaction tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by stating it's essential for price analysis, charting, and backtesting, which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, leaving a 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.